Supporting vendors:
 
Your ad here?
 
Old 06-25-2018, 12:16 PM   #11
HighWing
Senior Member
 
HighWing's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Cameron Park, Ca
Posts: 1,633
Default Re: elt question

3. REQUIREMENTS. New models of 406 MHz ELTs identified and manufactured on or after the effective date of this TSO must meet the MPS qualification and documentation requirements in RTCA Inc. document, RTCA/DO-204A, Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs), dated December 6, 2007, sections 2.2 and 2.4. The 406 MHz ELT must include a 121.5 MHz homing beacon. We also require that you obtain a Cospas-Sarsat type approval certificate before applying for this TSO. Additionally, the use of hook and loop fasteners is not an acceptable means of attachment in complying with the Crash Safety requirements of section 2.2.5 of RTCA/DO-204A for automatic fixed (AF) and automatic portable (AP) ELTs.

g. Deviations. We have provisions for using alternate or equivalent means of compliance to the criteria in the MPS of this TSO. If you invoke these provisions, you must show that your equipment maintains an equivalent level of safety. Apply for a deviation under the provision of 14 CFR § 21.618.

This brings up the story a friend - former Model IV owner - told me two days ago. A year or so ago, he sold a pristine 1950-ish C-150 to a guy. Recently, due for an annual, the new owner takes it to an AI for the inspection. The AI checks every log book entry from day 1 and discovers that in 1955 it had a nose gear collapse repair that was documented in the log book, but never officially signed off. Now, this new AI is insisting that the nose gear repair be redone so the correct entry can be placed in the log book - $12,000. A law-suit was filed against my friend to cover the cost of this inspection (repair). This airplane has had regular Annual Inspections for 60 years and a professional nit-picker is insisting that every one of those inspections was defective and "HE" needs to make it right.
__________________
Lowell Fitt
Cameron Park, CA
Model IV-1200 912 UL

My You Tube Channel

Last edited by HighWing; 06-25-2018 at 12:49 PM.
HighWing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2018, 01:00 PM   #12
Danzer1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Posts: 395
Default Re: elt question

Quote:
Originally Posted by HighWing View Post
g. Deviations. We have provisions for using alternate or equivalent means of compliance to the criteria in the MPS of this TSO. If you invoke these provisions, you must show that your equipment maintains an equivalent level of safety. Apply for a deviation under the provision of 14 CFR § 21.618.
Lowell, They don't need a deviation and I don't believe they applied for one as the new TSO only applies to new models designed and submitted after the effective date of the TSO. So they can continue to make and sell hook and loop mountings on all their previously TSO'd ELT's.

However Kannad did issue a vague service bulletin: https://www.mcmurdogroup.com/wp-cont...mechanisms.pdf

It requires firmly strapping and pulling on the unit to see if it will come out and visual inspection for wear and tear. Whoopie!

My point was, the NTSB wanted all hook and loop mounts to be eliminated and still could push for that to happen as they didn't get it in the current 126b - as it only has to be implemented on NEW elt designs submited for TSO after 11/26/12. Part of the reason some elt manufacturers aren't improving and redesigning their products since 2012.

Why install a $400 more expensive product when the concensus (stated in the TSO and by the NTSB) states: the use of hook and loop fasteners is not an acceptable means of attachment.

BTW, a dedicated 121 tuned external antenna will not optimally (if at all, depending on the antenna) transmit a 406 signal.

Greg
Danzer1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2018, 02:37 PM   #13
Guy Buchanan
 
Guy Buchanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ramona, CA
Posts: 107
Default Re: elt question

Quote:
Originally Posted by HighWing View Post
The AI checks every log book entry from day 1 and discovers that in 1955 it had a nose gear collapse repair that was documented in the log book, but never officially signed off. Now, this new AI is insisting that the nose gear repair be redone so the correct entry can be placed in the log book - $12,000.

An interesting business model. I wonder how long the AI can keep it up. Think anyone will risk taking their 40 year old aircraft to them?
__________________
Guy Buchanan
San Diego, CA
Deceased K-IV 1200 / 912uls / 70" Warp 3cs

gebuchanan@cox.net
Guy Buchanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2018, 02:53 PM   #14
Danzer1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Posts: 395
Default Re: elt question

Quote:
Originally Posted by HighWing View Post
3. REQUIREMENTS. New models of 406 MHz ELTs identified and manufactured on or after the effective date of this TSO must meet the MPS qualification and documentation requirements in RTCA Inc. document, RTCA/DO-204A, Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs), dated December 6, 2007, sections 2.2 and 2.4. The 406 MHz ELT must include a 121.5 MHz homing beacon. We also require that you obtain a Cospas-Sarsat type approval certificate before applying for this TSO. Additionally, the use of hook and loop fasteners is not an acceptable means of attachment in complying with the Crash Safety requirements of section 2.2.5 of RTCA/DO-204A for automatic fixed (AF) and automatic portable (AP) ELTs.

g. Deviations. We have provisions for using alternate or equivalent means of compliance to the criteria in the MPS of this TSO. If you invoke these provisions, you must show that your equipment maintains an equivalent level of safety. Apply for a deviation under the provision of 14 CFR § 21.618.

This brings up the story a friend - former Model IV owner - told me two days ago. A year or so ago, he sold a pristine 1950-ish C-150 to a guy. Recently, due for an annual, the new owner takes it to an AI for the inspection. The AI checks every log book entry from day 1 and discovers that in 1955 it had a nose gear collapse repair that was documented in the log book, but never officially signed off. Now, this new AI is insisting that the nose gear repair be redone so the correct entry can be placed in the log book - $12,000. A law-suit was filed against my friend to cover the cost of this inspection (repair). This airplane has had regular Annual Inspections for 60 years and a professional nit-picker is insisting that every one of those inspections was defective and "HE" needs to make it right.
Of course you left off the immediately preceeding paragraph which states:

"2. APPLICABILITY. This TSO affects new applications submitted after its effective date.

a. All prior revisions to this TSO are no longer effective. Generally, we will not accept applications for the previous revision after the effective date of this TSO. We may do so, however, up to six months after it, if we know that you were working against the prior MPS before the new change became effective.

b. 406 MHz ELTs approved under a previous TSOA may still be manufactured under the provisions of its original approval."

The 1st sentence says "affects new applications submitted" and Sub paragraph b says they can continue to make the old ones. No "deviation" required.

Your analogy (story) would be make sense, if I were to simply replace an elt because it had hook and loop mounting. But if I'm going to spend $500 to 900 anyway to get 406 - I might as well do it for the $500 and meet the current requirements whether "required" or not.
Danzer1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2018, 03:02 PM   #15
PapuaPilot
Senior Member
 
PapuaPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Nampa, Idaho
Posts: 654
Default Re: elt question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Buchanan View Post
An interesting business model. I wonder how long the AI can keep it up. Think anyone will risk taking their 40 year old aircraft to them?
That price seems a little over the top for a C-150, but I am an IA. All that to say, if I found incomplete or unsigned work on an aircraft I would want to look into it. In this case it may have required a complete teardown of the the nose strut and inspection of the mounting structure, etc. Also a red flag would be raised about a prop strike, which could happen even if the engine wasn't running (by definition from the engine mfg.). As an IA I am attesting to the airworthiness of the entire aircraft at the time I sign it off; both that it is in a condition for safe flight (the inspection) and that it conforms to its type design (the paperwork part, not just the last year but from day one). It is a big responsibility.

IF this IA is doing excessing or unneeded work the word will get around and people won't be coming to him.
__________________
Phil Nelson
A&P-IA, Maintenance Instructor
KF 5, Continental IO-240
Flying
PapuaPilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2018, 04:56 AM   #16
Dorsal
Senior Member
 
Dorsal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central, MA
Posts: 1,488
Default Re: elt question

This thread convinced me to go ahead and order the ACK E-04, if I'm going to get it eventually might as well get it now. Will be using the GDL-82 as a GPS source (just installed), will report back if there are any issues.
__________________
Dorsal ~~^~~
Series 7 - Tri-Gear
912 ULS Warp Drive
Dorsal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2018, 12:33 PM   #17
jonstark
 
jonstark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ashfield, MA
Posts: 114
Default Re: elt question

I’ve got a new ACK-E04 that must be “tested”.

Looking into this it appears as though I am supposed to notify the authorities prior to testing if I don’t have the test equipment in house and need to do a “live” test. Who do I call? ATC, USAF, NOAA?

There is a company offering $30/year and $30/test verification.

What are you guys doing to verify proper antenna emission strength annually?

Jon

Edit to add...
Having just read the sarsat/noaa policy the fee for service noted above is the way to go. They are able to read the self test broadcast and will notify of successful transmission. No need to ask Mother may I of the powers that be.
__________________
Kitfox IV 1050, C180. Now I have two backcountry planes! WooHoo!

Last edited by jonstark; 07-05-2018 at 12:43 PM.
jonstark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2018, 03:27 PM   #18
Dave S
Senior Member
 
Dave S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St Paul, MN
Posts: 1,368
Default Re: elt question

Jon,


The people who manage this is NOAA.



There is an answer to most questions on testing (from the horse's mouth) on their web site.


http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/Beacon%20...%20Policy.html


Also, you have to register the beacon with them when it is installed in the aircraft - I don't know if that is what you meant by notifying the authorities.


In any case, there is a phone number or two which will connect you with help for anything SARSAT; and, you should have these numbers in your plane and on your phone.



The numbers are 301-817-4515; and, too free, 888-212-7283


You will want these if ever there is an "oops" with the switch or test. These folks have no draconian proclivities - they are there to save our butts if we need it and there to contact if a false transmission goes off so they don't initiate SAR activities unnecessarily - when you register the beacon, there are several contact phone numbers you can choose to have them to call you or your emergency contact - this works for "oops" events too.


They will help you on the phone with with any unanswered setup or registration or use questions.
__________________
Dave S
Kitfox 7 Trigear (Flying since 2009)
912ULS Warp Drive

St Paul, MN
Dave S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2018, 03:50 PM   #19
jonstark
 
jonstark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ashfield, MA
Posts: 114
Default Re: elt question

There are a number of places offering advice on testing. It was confusing with some saying just call ATC or your tower where another said to apply for a live test to see if you qualify to send out a live emergency signal. Finally the application said to read the noaa policy before making application. Where I do believe after reading the policy that a new installation test would be authorized they recommend using the fee for service site. As previously stated instead of sending a real signal they can decode what is broadcast during self test and tell you if you’re ok. This prevents a real emergency that might be in progress concurrently from being impacted.

I will keep those numbers handy tho!

Jon
__________________
Kitfox IV 1050, C180. Now I have two backcountry planes! WooHoo!
jonstark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2018, 03:57 PM   #20
Dorsal
Senior Member
 
Dorsal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central, MA
Posts: 1,488
Default Re: elt question

Jon,
I just registered my E-04 and expect to be satisfied with the self test that can be initiated by the pilot (first 5 minutes of the hour). BTW which airport are you based at, 0B5?

Dave,
Thanks for posting those numbers, just entered them into my phone.
__________________
Dorsal ~~^~~
Series 7 - Tri-Gear
912 ULS Warp Drive
Dorsal is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.